Why were Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola cool but Peter Bogdanovich wasn't?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- V I D E O S T O W A T C H N E X T :
How to Evaluate a Trilogy: • How to evaluate trilogies
The Real Life Inspiration for Gollum: • Peter Lorre: The Real ...
How John Wayne Killed Hollywood: • How John Wayne and Tru...
Scorsese, Bogdanovich, Coppola, Brian De Palma, Terrance Malick, George Lucas, and Stephen Spielberg were all of the same cohort. But Bogdanovich doesn't have the same iconoclast reputation as the others? We take a minute to think about it, and wonder if he got the last laugh.
Connect with us:
Never Did It on Letterboxd: letterboxd.com...
Brad on Letterboxd: letterboxd.com...
Jake on Letterboxd: letterboxd.com...
Never Did It on Facebook: / neverdiditpodcast
Hosted by Brad Garoon & Jake Ziegler, with guest Tripp Burton
The two most divisive filmmakers of New Hollywood were probably Peter Bogdanovich and Brian De Palma because they wanted to make movies in the style of old Hollywood whereas the work of Scorsese and Coppola were influenced by European cinema and that was considered much more progressive.
Those first four Bogdanovich films really deserve to be called Polly Platt films. She did the look, he did the actors, but her personal aesthetic dominates. Bogdanovich emerges from her influence with Saint Jack and then makes two great films, Mask and The Cat’s Meow. But everything he does after Saint Jack is interesting.
I’m confused by the end of your comment. Are you saying you think Mask and CM are his best post Saint Jack movies but that you kinda like all of them?
@@neverdiditpod That’s right. Even average Bogdanovich post-Saint Jack is interesting because he finds his voice in this film. Another important question the Bogdanovich oeuvre poses is: Is ‘They All Laughed’ as good as he thought it was, or as mediocre as his colleague Joseph McBride thinks? I have no firm opinion, and go back and forth.
Haven’t seen that one yet, but I can say that all his other comedies are great.